Re: [Geopriv] IETF74 Consensus Calls

["Tschofenig, Hannes (NSN - FI/Espoo)" <hannes.tschofenig at nsn.com>]

Richard, 

Maybe you want to indicate what feedback has been indicated during the
meeting. Then, the guys attending the meeting would not have to state
their preference again. 

Ciao
Hannes 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: geopriv-bounces at ietf.org 
>[mailto:geopriv-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Richard Barnes
>Sent: 30 March, 2009 05:31
>To: 'GEOPRIV'
>Subject: [Geopriv] IETF74 Consensus Calls
>
>This email is a call to confirm consensus on three questions 
>raised at the GEOPRIV meeting at IETF 74, and to call for 
>consensus on one additional question.  Please reply no later 
>than Thursday, 2 April 2009.
>
>
>Confirmations:
>
>1. Should GEOPRIV add a milestone for updates and 
>clarifications to RFC 3693, based on draft-barnes-geopriv-lo-sec?
>
>2. Should GEOPRIV add a milestone for a URI that describes 
>geodetic location information, based on 
>draft-mayrhofer-geopriv-geo-uri.
>
>3.a. Should GEOPRIV add a milestone for backward-compatible 
>fixes to the RFC 3825 geodetic location format?
>
>3.b Should GEOPRIV add a milestone for a new, 
>non-backward-compatible DHCP format for geodetic location information?
>
>
>New Question:
>
>4. At IETF 71, there was GEOPRIV consensus to seek a milestone to 
>address the problems discussed in 
>draft-winterbottom-geopriv-held-identity-extensions.  Should GEOPRIV 
>base that milestone on that document?
>_______________________________________________
>Geopriv mailing list
>Geopriv at ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>